American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
American Journal of Educational Research. 2015, 3(1), 80-85
DOI: 10.12691/education-3-1-14
Open AccessArticle

Does Team Autonomy Increase or Decrease Team Implementation? The Role of Team Learning

Sarit Rashkovits1,

1Department of Health Care Systems Management; Yezreel Valley College, Israel

Pub. Date: January 22, 2015

Cite this paper:
Sarit Rashkovits. Does Team Autonomy Increase or Decrease Team Implementation? The Role of Team Learning. American Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 3(1):80-85. doi: 10.12691/education-3-1-14


As the necessity for teams to implement different innovations is prominent, the study addresses the question of the effect of team autonomy on teams' innovation implementation. Team autonomy is usually considered as a beneficial job characteristic but it is still unclear whether it aligns with the necessity to make teams implement new technologies, work methods or other innovations. We argue for a positive effect of team autonomy on teams' innovation implementation through the process of team learning. The results from a sample of 61 work teams (414 employees- 61 team leaders and 353 team members) from different organizations support our hypotheses. The results indicate that team autonomy facilitates team learning, that team learning facilitates team implementation, and that team autonomy positively affects team innovation via team learning.

team autonomy team implementation team learning

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., and Harrington, E.
[2]  (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 265-285.
[3]  Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein and S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[4]  Bruller, D., & Carmeli, A. (2011). Linking capacities of high quality relationships to team learning and performance in service organizations. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 455-477.
[5]  Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration of institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 245-253.
[6]  Cohen, A., Doveh, E. & Eick, U. (2001). Statistical properties of the rWG(J) Index of Agreement. Psychological Methods, 6(3), 297-310.
[7]  Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49: 643-676.
[8]  Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., and Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 240-258.
[9]  Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, (2): 350-383
[10]  Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies,40(6): 1412-1452.
[11]  Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J.R., & Roloff, K. S. (2007). Chapter 6: Three perspectives on team learning. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1): 269-314.
[12]  Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: the challenges are the benefits. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26: 123-138.
[13]  Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2002). Disrupted routines: tam learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4): 685-716.
[14]  Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 202-239.
[15]  Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (1996). The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. Guilford Press.‏
[16]  Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
[17]  Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
[18]  Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. Ariel, 129, 32-197.
[19]  Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. NY: Guilford.
[20]  Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for publication.‏
[21]  Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A Cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.
[22]  Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5): 1332-1356.
[23]  James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rWG: An assessment of within group inter-rater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-339.
[24]  James, L. W.(1984). Estimating within- group interpreter reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-98.
[25]  Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2011). Enhancing firm performance and innovativeness through error management culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson‏ (Eds.). Handbook of organizational culture and climate, 9, 137-157. London: Sage.
[26]  Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811-824.
[27]  Klein, K. J. and Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation implementation – overcoming the challenge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 243-6.
[28]  Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1080.‏
[29]  Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management, 42(1): 58-74.
[30]  Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., and Gibson C. B.(2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 175-192.
[31]  Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934.
[32]  Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of management, 31(4), 513-529.
[33]  LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2007). Answers to 20 questions about inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 815.
[34]  Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891.
[35]  Richardson, H. A., Vandenberg, R. J., Blum, T. C., & Roman, P. M. (2002). Does decentralization make a difference for the organization? An examination of the boundary conditions circumscribing decentralized decision-making and organizational financial performance. Journal of Management, 28(2), 217-244.
[36]  Schippers, M., Edmondson, C. A. C., & West., M. A. (2014). Team reflexivity as an antidote to team information processing failures. Small Group Research, 45(6), 731-769.
[37]  Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human Relations, 61,1593-1616.
[38]  Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology, 13(1982), 290-312.
[39]  Sprietzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5):1442-14465.
[40]  Tucker, A. Nembhard, L., I., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Implementing new practices: An empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Science, 53(6), 894-907.
[41]  Van der Vegt, G. S., De Jong, S. B., Bunderson, J. S., & Molleman, E. (2010). Power asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization Science, 21(2), 347-361.
[42]  Vashdi, D., Bamberger, P., & Erez, M. (2013). Can surgical teams ever learn? Towards a theory of action team learning. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 945-971.
[43]  West, M. A. (2002), Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51: 355=387.
[44]  Zhang. X. C., Chen., Y. Y., & Kwan, H. K. (2010). Empowering leadership and team creativity: The role of team learning behavior, team creative efficacy, and team task complexity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.
[45]  Zellmer- Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organization context: implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 501-518.
[46]  Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management Science, 52(10), 1557-1576.